I don't see the point of arbitrarily keeping certain states in certain groups. There is no "confederacy" here and there's no real need for them to be kept together. However, there is the point that you can't just slap a name on a collection of states and expect them to make sense.

(For instance, Texas is part of the South, so it would be silly to not include it in a southern region. But there is no reason for including Virginia or Missouri in a Southern region since they're not literally in the Southern portion of Atlasia.)

Rather than doing it by arbitrary geographic means, why don't we look up partisan distribution by state and use that to make competitive regions (i.e., ones with relatively equal numbers of RPP, JCP, SDP, DA)?

Rather than doing it by arbitrary geographic means, why don't we look up partisan distribution by state and use that to make competitive regions (i.e., ones with relatively equal numbers of RPP, JCP, SDP, DA)?

We should look at this in a completely non-partisan fashion, neither disadvantaging nor aiding any party purposely by the divisions. Once you let current parties play a role in determining one aspect of a new Atlasia you open a box that is best left untouched.

Rather than doing it by arbitrary geographic means, why don't we look up partisan distribution by state and use that to make competitive regions (i.e., ones with relatively equal numbers of RPP, JCP, SDP, DA)?

Impossible, because of the JCP and of the RPP. Too concentrated in the same place.

Rather than doing it by arbitrary geographic means, why don't we look up partisan distribution by state and use that to make competitive regions (i.e., ones with relatively equal numbers of RPP, JCP, SDP, DA)?

This is a non-partisan convention. We're not here to do favours for our respective parties or gerrymander regions.

Logged

The Prime Minister of New Zealand:17:40 oakvale the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible17:40 oakvale The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death

Rather than doing it by arbitrary geographic means, why don't we look up partisan distribution by state and use that to make competitive regions (i.e., ones with relatively equal numbers of RPP, JCP, SDP, DA)?

I consider gerrymanders to be unethical - whether to make an electoral district/region more competitive or less competitive.

Depending on the model we adopt and role of the regions within that model, I like Afleitch's suggestion about having a variable number of regions depending on the numbers of active participants. If we followed a parliamentary model where the regions played roles (such as the basis of Senators) without the requirement of heavy regional activity levels (such as Governors, individual legislatures, etc), we could perhaps consider redistricting regions at various times (perhaps annually) with the objective of regions containing approximately 10 participants each (and if a state has more than 10 participants, it is automatically a region in its own right). Obviously there'd be some necessary margin for error, maybe making a region comprise of not less than 7 participants and not more than 15.

Actually, this is becoming difficult to put into words, so may be too complex. Someone else probably knows what I'm trying to say and might be able to come out with a better explanation.

Actually, this is becoming difficult to put into words, so may be too complex. Someone else probably knows what I'm trying to say and might be able to come out with a better explanation.

I get where you're coming from. To pull back a bit, a lower house with total participation as in your proposal could allow for districting in the sense that Washington would be divided into say 9 seats and each representative would effectively represent one of those seats. This would mean that someone could 'represent' part of Seattle etc. If economic issues become the main issues, some people would probably wish to represent rural areas, rust belt cities, Chicago etc and the people and interests you would expect to be found there. Once every few months the whole map undergoes redistricting.

At present people register in states or in states to be in certain regions. It would be better to actually represent what that stands for. Al for example used to represent mining concerns in WV - it's something he knows about and is passionate about.

Therefore regions may not necessarily have to follow state lines as a result.

At one time I would have supported four regions, but some population shifts have occurred since then.

There was a movement to keep all of Dixie together (see the Dixie Union Caucus - 2005) but that movement failed.

As someone from Louisiana, I would really like to see La. remain in the same region that reaches to Georgia and Florida (not sure how far north) and would like Texas as well, but recognize that under the right circumstances Texas could be a better fit in a western region.

If we do anything with the regions, this should be separate from the convention and discussed with the entire population. See how the residents of each state feel. Only thing is we have many people registered in a different state from which they live and some that aren't even in the real U.S.

Only thing is we have many people registered in a different state from which they live and some that aren't even in the real U.S.

I was considering at one point suggesting that we have the regions, plus an "Overseas Territories" region, but eventually figured we don't have enough foreign posters in Atlasia to warrant it.

I think we do, but I'm not sure how it would fit in. Getting way of topic, I think we should allow registrations in Canada and then establish diplomatic relations between the two countries. But that would make things way more complicated than they need to be.

I don't think population and/or parties should be considered. It is way to easy to self-gerrymand as the RPP has proved

Population is a good way to avoid unintentional gerrymandering, like you have proven.

If it is relatively easy to carpetbag, then it's impossible to gerrymander. If people don't like how the regions are drawn, they will simply switch regions to work their way around it. Brandon already pointed to the fact that we have a large number of people in regions they don't physically live and often this may be for partisan reasons.

As such, I consider carpetbagging to be of a similar nature to gerrymandering and both lessen the value of the regions. Consequently, I think that it's important to adopt strict guidelines in relation to changing regions. Since there are foreigners such as myself, and since it can be hard to prove where someone lives, I would suggest that a participant may change their state of registration, but only at certain times of the year. In my draft, I set two particular months in which people could change their state of registration.

Only thing is we have many people registered in a different state from which they live and some that aren't even in the real U.S.

I was considering at one point suggesting that we have the regions, plus an "Overseas Territories" region, but eventually figured we don't have enough foreign posters in Atlasia to warrant it.

I think we do, but I'm not sure how it would fit in. Getting way of topic, I think we should allow registrations in Canada and then establish diplomatic relations between the two countries. But that would make things way more complicated than they need to be.

If Canada, why not the UK and Australia? I agree that that would make things a little too complicated, unless we decided to make a game with different 'nations' and have diplomacy as a strong point. But then that becomes a different game! I'd be happy with it, but I don't know who else would

I don't think population and/or parties should be considered. It is way to easy to self-gerrymand as the RPP has proved

Population is a good way to avoid unintentional gerrymandering, like you have proven.

If it is relatively easy to carpetbag, then it's impossible to gerrymander. If people don't like how the regions are drawn, they will simply switch regions to work their way around it. Brandon already pointed to the fact that we have a large number of people in regions they don't physically live and often this may be for partisan reasons.

As such, I consider carpetbagging to be of a similar nature to gerrymandering and both lessen the value of the regions. Consequently, I think that it's important to adopt strict guidelines in relation to changing regions. Since there are foreigners such as myself, and since it can be hard to prove where someone lives, I would suggest that a participant may change their state of registration, but only at certain times of the year. In my draft, I set two particular months in which people could change their state of registration.

Actually, for simulation reasons... Why allow people to move at all? Wouldn't it be a better idea to prevent people from moving once they've registered? It would help us with maintaining the simulation.